MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924631722 · doi:10.1017/s1478951519000087

A scoping review of palliative care for persons with severe persistent mental illness

2019· review· en· W2924631722 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative carePsychological interventionMultidisciplinary approachAutonomyHealth careMedicinePopulationNursingMental healthCompetence (human resources)Grey literatureMEDLINEPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: People with severe persistent mental illness (SPMI) experience a greater burden and severity of chronic disease, late diagnosis, and premature death compared with the general population. Those with SPMI also receive fewer medical treatments, poor quality of care, and are less likely to receive palliative care. A systematic scoping review was undertaken to determine the extent, range, and nature of research activity about people with SPMI requiring palliative care, and to identify gaps and opportunities for future research. METHOD: A systematic scoping review was undertaken in September 2017 and updated in May 2018 to map literature on this topic, determine the extent and range of what has been published, and report the findings. This five-stage framework was conducted by (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) determining study selection; (4) charting the data; and 5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. A narrative approach to analysis was used to synthesize and interpret findings. A search of multidisciplinary healthcare databases resulted in 46 included articles. RESULT: Four major themes were identified from the included studies: complexity of care; limited access to care (both through systems and healthcare providers); competence and autonomy; and the potential for relationships between mental health and palliative care. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This review reveals a highly vulnerable population with complex needs that are not reliably being met by the healthcare system and providers. Research in this area must continue to develop using rigorous qualitative and quantitative study designs, and interventions should be developed and tested based on existing knowledge to inform care. The voices of people with SPMI in need of palliative care must be represented in future studies to address gaps. To expand a body of literature addressing mainly individuals, system perspectives and sociocultural analysis can bring much to contextualizing the experience of living with SPMI in the palliative phase of care. Adoption of a palliative approach, which promotes the principles of palliative care across nonspecialized care settings provided by nonspecialist palliative providers, has the potential to increase access to high-quality palliative treatment for people with SPMI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it